UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Assignment Cover Sheet Name: Sabitra Rai Student ID 1 10 204 2 8 3 Email: [email protected]Course code and title: Nursing ProjectCourse Coordinator: Rebecca Sharp, Andie XuAssignment topic: Assignment 1Due date: Friday, 30 July 2021, 5:00 PM Further Information: (e.g. state if extension was granted and attach evidence of approval, Revised Submission Date) An extension was granted for: Friday, 1 October 2021, 5:00 PM I declare that the work contained in this assignment is my own, except where acknowledgement of sources is made. I authorise the University to test any work submitted by me, using text comparison software, for instances of plagiarism. I understand this will involve the University or its contractor copying my work and storing it on a database to be used in future to test work submitted by others. I understand that I can obtain further information on this matter at http://www.unisa.edu.au/learningadvice/integrity/default.asp Note: The attachment of this statement on any electronically submitted assignments will be deemed to have the same authority as a signed statement. Date received from student Friday, 1 October 2021, 2:51 PM – Assessment/grade Assessed by: — NURS 3046 Nursing Project Assignment 1 (2,000 words 45%) STUDENT NAME: Sabitra RaiSTUDENT ID: 110204283 Please do not change the template Please note: 2,000 words includes the in-text references but excludes the citation and Reference List. Introduction Oral mucositis (OM) is a relatively common side effect among patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, with a prevalence ranging from 20% to 49% in new cancer patients (Sonis 2009). The actual risk of developing OM depends on patient factors such as advanced age (Cakmak & Nural 2019); and treatment factors such as the carcinoma site and the dose of therapy (Brown et al. 2009; Sonis 2009; Vera-Llonch et al. 2006). The pathophysiology of OM involves a complex interaction of biological processes, triggered by the breakdown of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strands following radiation and/or chemotherapy (Sonis 2009). The severity of OM ranges from erythema to ulceration (Sonis et al. 1999), often companied by physical symptoms including dry mouth, reduced appetite and altered taste (Cakmak & Nural 2019). Patients living with severe episodes of OM have also reported higher level of anxiety, depression, and fatigue (Brown et al. 2009), and are known to experience a longer hospital stay (Elting et al. 2003). As an ancient remedy, honey was used as a method of healing (Mandal & Mandal 2011). In modern medicine, treatment of partial thickness burns and post-operative wounds with honey is documented (Jull et al. 2015). The healing properties of honey can be attributed to its antimicrobial potential, which impedes the growth of bacterial; and its high concentration of water, which maintains the moist level in the wound bed (Mandal & Mandal 2011). These properties together help create an optimal environment for cell and tissue growth. Previous studies have examined the effects of honey in promoting healing of OM among cancer patients, yet the results have been inconsistent. Research Question: What is the effectiveness of honey on the healing of OM and other health related outcomes among head and neck cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy? Significance The research question is highly significant because providing care based on best available evidence is an integral part of nursing practice (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2016). Results of this review might inform and complement current nursing practice in the management of oral mucositis among cancer patients. If shown to be effective, honey has the potential to become a readily available remedy in treating OM, subsequently improving patient’s nutrition status and quality of life. SummarY ANALYSIS of Four (4) Primary Research Articles (1000 words) You have selected four (4) studies from the Scenario Package that are relevant and primary research. Now write a 250-word summary of each study following the 3-step format outlined in Topic 2. Summary of an irrelevant article will result in a zero-grade. Paper 1 Charalambous[TM1] , M., Raftopoulos, V., Paikousis, L., Katodritis, N., Lambrinou, E., Vomvas, D., Georgiou, M. and Charalambous, A., 2018. The effect of the use of thyme honey in minimizing radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial. European journal of oncology nursing, 34, pp.89-97. The study is aimed to determine the effectiveness of thyme honey in managing oral mucositis. The study type is experiment and comparative analysis. [TM2] Here, the head and neck cancer patients are divided into control group (where the patient used saline rinses) and the intervention group ([TM3] where the patient used thyme honey rinses) to determine the effectiveness of thyme honey in reducing oral mucositis[TM4] . RCT is used here for segmenting 72 head and neck cancer patients into experimental and control groups[TM5] . The place of study is Cyprus Oncology Centre (Raftopoulos, et al., 2018, pp. 89-97)[TM6] . 72 number of participants is included in the study. Patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer are were [TM7] enrolled for the study. The participants are enrolled by the consultants in radiation oncology. The data [TM8] is analyzed using the baseline comparison process. T-test is used for comparing age and level of radiation dose. X2 test is used for drawing the relationship between gender and education of the participants. Thyme honey is effective in managing oral mucositis within head and neck cancer patients during and after the radiotherapy. Patients developed ing oral mucositis in the honey intervention group within the first 4 weeks, which got reduced in a linear way. Therefore, it is analyzed that thyme honey is effective in the management of oral mucositis[TM9] . Paper 2 Bardy, J., Molassiotis, A., Ryder, W.D., Mais, K., Sykes, A., Yap, B., Lee, L., Kaczmarski, E. and Slevin, N., 2012. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of active manuka honey and standard oral care for radiation-induced oral mucositis. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 50(3), pp.221-226. [TM10] The study aimed [TM11] s to research the effect of manuka honey upon the radiation induced mucositis (Bardy, et al., 2012, pp. 221-226). The study type is competitive experiments [TM12] and random sampling method is used for allocating the participants into the trail group. Here, one trial group is of those people who are treated with manuka honey[TM13] , and the other group consist of people treated with placebo. [TM14] The condition of patients on the treatment of different medication are compared to reach into the conclusion that where manuka honey is effective for treating mucositis or not[TM15] . The place of study is a cancer center in the northwest of England. 131 participants [TM16] were selected for the study. The enrolments are taken from patients from an outpatient’s clinic in England who had oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Statistical analysis with the help of Chi-square test is done to assess the importance of different outcomes between the two trial groups, one is intervention with manuka honey and the other one is with place[TM17] bo (a golden syrup[TM18] ). It has been found that both honey and the golden syrup are effective in reducing bacterial infections associated with oral mucositis. However, no significant difference is observed between the outcomes of treating with manuka honey and with the syrup. Hence, it is analyzed that none of them are impactful in improving the condition of oral mucositis[TM19] . Paper 3 Legouté, F., Bensadoun, R.J., Seegers, V., Pointreau, Y., Caron, D., Lang, P., Prévost, A., Martin, L., Schick, U., Morvant, B. and Capitain, O., 2019. Low-level laser therapy in treatment of chemoradiotherapy-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer: results of a randomised, triple blind, multicentre phase III trial. Radiation Oncology, 14(1), pp.1-11.[TM20] The aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in treating chemo radiotherapy-induced head and neck cancer (Legouté, et al., 2019, pp. 1-11). The study type is comparative experiment, as patients were assigned to an active laser group and a placebo group. The study method is statistical since, the increase or decrease of the incidence of oral mucositis is evaluated in percentage. The place of study is France since, the patients were recruited from French centers of specialist cancer care. 83 number of participants were finally assessed through the study. The enrolment started with 23 patients and only those having squamous cell carcinoma with oral cavity and oropharynx are enrolled. Statistical analysis is performed through a Chi-square test for comparing the outcomes of the two groups, one is active laser and the other one is placebo. The lower-level laser therapy is suitable for using in clinical routine of those patients who needs to be treated for oral mucositis. This is because 95% of the patients in the trial group exhibited a fair tolerance of low-level laser therapy. Paper 4 Samdariya, S., Lewis, S., Kauser, H., Ahmed, I. and Kumar, D., 2015. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of honey in reducing pain due to radiation induced mucositis in head and neck cancer patients. Indian journal of palliative care, 21(3), p.268. [TM21] The study aimed s to evaluate the role of honey [TM22] in relieving pain occurring due to radiation-induced mucositis (Samdariya, et al., 2015, p. 268). The comparative experiment is the study type [TM23] used since the analysis of patients were done by assigning few of them into test group and the remaining ones into the control group. Randomised Control Trail Trial (RCT[TM24] ) is the method undertaken for studying the analgesic effect of honey in treating mucositis. The place of study is India, as head and neck cancer patients attending the Radiation Oncology Clinic were incorporated in the study. 78 participants [TM25] were involved. The enrolments are taken from those patients who experience head and neck cancer[TM26] . Statistical data analysis is used, and the SPSS software is utilized for compiling the data related to the outcomes of application of honey in different trial groups. Honey is an effective medicine in reducing pain associated to mucositis within the patients having cancer. However, such severe reduction of pain is not observed in the other control group and hence it is analyzed that honey reduced pain due to mucositis[TM27] . Results and Discussion (900 words) Comparison among the research methods of four studies [TM28] Four of the studies have used the study type of RCTs comparative studies and experiment, as all of them assigned the participants into a test and a control group to compare the results. A primary research method is also used by all the studies since the intervention is carried upon realistic participants. [TM29] However, Bardy et al. (2012) involved the highest number of participants [TM30] amounting to 131 in their study. On the other hand, the lowest number of participants were involved by Raftopoulos [TM31] et al. (2018). Therefore, it is seen that in terms of sample size, the research method differs. In the study of Raftopoulos et al. (2018), the thyme honey is prioritised in reducing the radiation-induced oral mucositis within cancer patients. It says that if the intervention is carried with this thyme honey, then the health care results would be seen within 4 weeks. The effectiveness of honey in managing mucositis is also claimed by Legouté et al. (2019), and it suggests that the honey should be integrated with the existing therapy procedures for mucositis treatment. However, the outcome of Bardy et al. (2012) differs here since the author talks about the ineffective implication of honey in mucositis. The [TM32] study infers that manuka honey is not suitable for improving the condition of oral mucositis, rather it can reduce the related bacterial infections to some extent. At this point, the inference of this paper regarding the suitability of honey in managing oral mucositis differs from the others. Though this paper has set an exception, most of the studies indicated the effective performance of honey in managing mucositis.[TM33] Support with other academic articles where did you get these headings from? They are not helpful As underpinned found by Raftopoulos et al. (2018), thyme honey is effective in treating oral mucositis, which gets develops ed due to radiotherapy among neck and head cancer patients. A similar underpinning finding is made by Münstedt & Männle (2019), [TM34] who claimed that bee products are useful in treating patients experiencing oral mucositis after radiotherapy. He says that treatment with honey should be integrated with the established techniques of mucositis treatment like low-level laser therapy. The significance of low-level laser therapy is outlined by Legouté et al. (2019) due to its fair tolerance among the patients[TM35] . On the other hand, Bardy et al. (2012) say that honey is not effective in improving the condition of oral mucositis but can reduce the pain. [TM36] So, this particular finding contradicts the other academic sources [TM37] outlining the significance of honey in treating oral mucositis developed among head and neck cancer patients due to radiotherapy. The finding of Samdariya et al. (2015) is supported by the above academic sources, as it brings a similar claim that honey is effective in treating oral mucositis in patients receiving radiotherapy. with oral mucositis. [TM38] As per the study of Amanat et al. (2017[TM39] ), honey is applied to the oral mucosa of those patients who have undergone radiotherapy. This treatment is beneficial in reducing the intensity of oral mucositi[TM40] s. Since honey is a natural ingredient and economically suitable, so, it is highly preferred by different academic articles research tudies in managing oral mucositis (Sener, et al., 2019, pp. e95-e101). Radiotherapy which is given to treat cancer patients affects the malignant cells and is absorbed by oral and gastrointestinal mucosa (Khanal, et al., 2010, pp. 1181-1185). This mucositis due to radiotherapy involves inflammation of cells, whose healing is facilitated by the application of honey.[TM41] The effectiveness of honey in healing oral mucositis is also supported by (Liu, et al., 2019, pp. 2361-2370)[TM42] A comparative experiment has been performed which revealed that honey is effective in limiting oral carcinoma [TM43] and mucositis, as the proportion of patients in the honey control group were found less intolerant to mucositis. Comparing effectiveness of honey in healing oral mucositis By analyzing the inferences given by all the articles, it can be said that thyme honey is highly effective in treating oral mucositis compared to the normal ones [TM44] (Raftopoulos, et al., 2018, pp. 89-97). In fact, it should be integrated with the therapeutic processes that are undertaken while managing the oral mucositis condition among the cancer patients. However, honey does not exhibit significant difference with the placebo in curing the mucositis (Rao, et al., 2017, p. 77 ). In fact, both [TM45] are effective in reducing the bacterial infections occurring due to oral mucositis. Key findings The key finding from all the four-research article says that honey is effective in managing oral mucositis developed among head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy[TM46] . This is because, while running the comparative trials, it is seen that patients led to honey-oriented intervention group losinge weight, [TM47] maintain health body, and get recovered from mucositis (El-Attar., 2019, pp. 3283-3329). [TM48] Even, it also helped in treating the bacterial infections happening due to oral mucositis. Maximum number of articles studies [TM49] have come to the conclusion that honey is an essential natural ingredient which should be incorporated in the therapeutic cancer treatment. Studies have also claimed that it should be integrated with established cancer treatment techniques like low laser therapy (Legouté, et al., 2019, pp. 1-11). It has also been found that any bee product which can be royal gels, bee venom and propolis[TM50] , all are effective in treating oral mucositis and should be intertwined with the techniques of cancer treatment reference?. The health outcomes associated with mucositis such as greater body weight and bacterial infections also get managed with the consumption of honey. Conclusion (100 words) Honey is effective in managing the impaired health conditions that occur due to oral mucositis. It helps to kill bacterial infections, [TM51] enables effective body weight management, and thereby improves the health conditions owing to mucositis. The intervention with honey thus needs to be compiled with [TM52] radiotherapy and other cancer treatment therapies such that the patient does not need to face health-related complications post to the therapeutic treatments. Apart from honey, other bee products like venom and royal gel are also similarly effective in treating oral mucositis[TM53] . Honey contributes to reducing the inflammation and ulceration of mucositis and hence it has been approved by multiple authors for applying it to manage oral mucositis among head and neck cancer patients References [TM54] Bardy, et al., 2012. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of active manuka honey and standard oral care for radiation-induced oral mucositis.. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 50(3), pp. 221-226 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.03.005.[TM55] Brown, CG, McGuire, DB, Peterson, DE, Beck, SL, Dudley, WN & Mooney, KH 2009, ‘The experience of a sore mouth and associated symptoms in patients with cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy’,. Cancer Nursing, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 259–270. Cakmak, S & Nural, N 2019, ‘Incidence of and risk factors for development of oral mucositis in outpatients undergoing cancer chemotherapy’,. International Journal of Nursing Practice, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. e12710. El-Attar., 2019. A comparative study of students and professionals in syntactical model comprehension experiments. Software and Systems Modeling, 18(6), pp. 3283-3329 ; DOI: 10.1007/s10270-019-00720-5.[TM56] Elting, LS, Cooksley, C, Chambers, M, Cantor, SB, Manzullo, E & Rubenstein, EB 2003, ‘The burdens of cancer therapy. Clinical and economic outcomes of chemotherapy-induced mucositis’,. Cancer, vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 1531–1539. Jull, AB, Cullum, N, Dumville, JC, Westby, MJ, Deshpande, S & Walker, N 2015, ’Honey as a topical treatment for wounds’. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3), Cd005083. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4. Khanal, Baliga & Uppal., 2010. Effect of topical honey on limitation of radiation-induced oral mucositis: an intervention study. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 39(12), pp. 1181-1185 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.05.014. Legouté, F. B. R. S. P. et al., 2019. Low-level laser therapy in treatment of chemoradiotherapy-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer:results of a randomised, triple blind, multicentre phase III trial.. Radiation Oncology, 14(1), pp. 1-11 ; DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1292-2. Liu, et al., 2019. Prophylactic and therapeutic effects of honey on radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 27(7), pp. 2361-2370 ; DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-04722-3.[TM57] Mandal, MD & Mandal, S 2011, ‘Honey: its medicinal property and antibacterial activity’,. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 154–160. Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2016, Registered nurses standards for practice. Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, Melbourne. Raftopoulos, C. et al., 2018. The effect of the use of thyme honey in minimizing radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients:A randomized controlled trial. European journal of oncology nursing, 34(01), pp. 89-97 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2018.04.003. Rao, S. H. S. R. et al., 2017. Honey mitigates radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients without affecting the tumor response. Foods, 6(9), p. 77 ; DOI: 10.3390/foods6090077. Samdariya, et al., 2015. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of honey in reducing pain due to radiation induced mucositis in head and neck cancer patients. Indian journal of palliative care, 21(3), pp. 268 ; DOI: 10.4103/0973-1075.164892. Sener, Aydin, Cangur & Guven., 2019. The effect of oral care with chlorhexidine, vitamin E and honey on mucositis in pediatric intensive care patients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of pediatric nursing, 45(01), pp. e95-e101 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2019.02.001.[TM58] Sonis, ST 2009, ‘Mucositis: The impact, biology and therapeutic opportunities of oral mucositis’. Oral Oncology, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 1015–1020. Sonis, ST, Eilers, JP, Epstein, JB., LeVeque, FG, Liggett, WH Jr., Mulagha, MT, . . . Wittes, JP 1999, ‘Validation of a new scoring system for the assessment of clinical trial research of oral mucositis induced by radiation or chemotherapy. Mucositis Study Group’. Cancer, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 2103–2113. Vera-Llonch, M, Oster, G, Hagiwara, M & Sonis, S 2006, ‘Oral mucositis in patients undergoing radiation treatment for head and neck carcinoma’. Cancer, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 329–336. 2021 NURS 3046 Nursing Project Assessment Feedback Form & Marking Rubric Assessment 1 (2000 words) Weighting 45% of final course grade CO 1; CO 2, CO3 Criteria HD (85% 100%)D (75% -84%)CR (65% – 74%)P1 (55% – 64%)P2 (50% – 54%)F1 (40% – 49%)F2 (39% – 0%) Summary of four (4) primary research articles (1000 words in total & 250 words each summary 40% 14/401st research article Includes all requirements of a D AND Summary is comprehensive, detailed, accurate, balanced and well-articulated 1st research article Includes all requirements of a C AND Attention to relevant details in study methods AND/OR findings 1st research article Includes all requirements of a P1 AND All elements in study methods identified AND/OR All elements in study findings identified1st research article Basic attempt to summarize the article using the 3-step framework. Most elements in study methods identified, AND Most findings identified. 1st research article Limited, superficial attempt to summarize the article Half of the elements in study methods NOT identified Half of the findings NOT identified, inadequate. 1st research article Mostly poor, irrelevant, unrelated attempt to summarize the article. Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect elements about study methods Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect findings. 1st research article Irrelevant response, i.e. Article chosen NOT from the scenario packages Article chosen NOT relevant to the research question Article chosen NOT primary research Did not follow any part of the 3 step framework provided Cut and paste of the article Abstract Missing summary2nd research article Includes all requirements of a D AND Summary is comprehensive, detailed, accurate, balanced and well-articulated 2nd research article Includes all requirements of a C AND Attention to relevant details in study methods AND/OR findings2nd research article Includes all requirements of a P1 AND All elements in study methods identified AND/OR All elements in study findings identified2nd research article Basic attempt to summarize the article using the 3-step framework. Most elements in study methods identified, AND Most findings identified. 2nd research article Limited, superficial attempt to summarize the article Half of the elements in study methods NOT identified Half of the findings NOT identified, inadequate. 2nd research article Mostly poor, irrelevant, unrelated attempt to summarize the article. Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect elements about study methods Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect findings. 2nd research article Irrelevant response, i.e. Article chosen NOT from the scenario packages Article chosen NOT relevant to the research question Article chosen NOT primary research Did not follow any part of the 3-step framework provided Cut and paste of the article Abstract Missing summary3rd research article Includes all requirements of a D AND Summary is comprehensive, detailed, accurate, balanced and well-articulated 3rd research article Includes all requirements of a C AND Attention to relevant details in study methods AND/OR findings3rd research article Includes all requirements of a P1 AND All elements in study methods identified AND/OR All elements in study findings identified3rd research article Basic attempt to summarize the article using the 3-step framework. Most elements in study methods identified, AND Most findings identified. 3rd research article Limited, superficial attempt to summarize the article Half of the elements in study methods NOT identified Half of the findings NOT identified, inadequate. 3rd research article Mostly poor, irrelevant, unrelated attempt to summarize the article. Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect elements about study methods Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect findings. 3rd research article Irrelevant response, i.e. Article chosen NOT from the scenario packages Article chosen NOT relevant to the research question Article chosen NOT primary research Did not follow any part of the 3 step framework provided Cut and paste of the article Abstract Missing summary4th research article Includes all requirements of a D AND Summary is comprehensive, detailed, accurate, balanced and well-articulated 4th research article Includes all requirements of a C AND Attention to relevant details in study methods AND/OR findings4th research article Includes all requirements of a P1 AND All elements in study methods identified AND/OR All elements in study findings identified4th research article Basic attempt to summarize the article using the 3-step framework. Most elements in study methods identified, AND Most findings identified. 4th research article Limited, superficial attempt to summarize the article Half of the elements in study methods NOT identified Half of the findings NOT identified, inadequate. 4th research article Mostly poor, irrelevant, unrelated attempt to summarize the article. Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect elements about study methods Mostly poor, irrelevant, or incorrect findings. 4th research article Irrelevant response, i.e. Article chosen NOT from the scenario packages Article chosen NOT relevant to the research question Article chosen NOT primary research Did not follow any part of the 3 step framework provided Cut and paste of the article Abstract Missing summaryresults & Discussion (900 word) 50% 19.5/50 Exceptional understanding of the synthesis process Includes all requirements of a D AND Well argued, clearly expressed key messages that accurately capture the main findings of the four articles Justification of the key messages is sound, accurate, and evidence based. Shows excellent skills in using additional literature (on topic and/or methods) to justify the key messages Advanced understanding of the synthesis process Includes all requirements of a C AND In-depth justification for each identified key message. i.e. some good integration of additional literature either on the topic or study methods. Good understanding of the synthesis process Includes all requirements of a P1 AND Present a good set of key messages Key messages justified using findings of the relevant four primary articles mostly Some insights to research methods demonstrated Basic understanding and skill in undertaking the synthesis process to answer the research question, i.e. Some distinct relevant key messages explicitly identified (more could be extracted). Key messages justified using findings of the relevant four primary articles. The provided justification can be improved further, but the process is communicated clearly, and easy to understand. Superficial understanding and skill in undertaking the synthesis process to answer the research question, i.e. Some relevant key messages are present but need to be read into (more key messages could be extracted). The process of justifying the key messages is not always clear. e.g. confusing methods with findings OR not acknowledging some sources contributing to the key messages Mostly irrelevant, unrelated attempt to synthesize to answer the research question, i.e. Many incorrect understandings of the four articles Many mistakes in comparing/categorizing i.e. compare methods with findings. Many omissions of relevant articles in synthesizing a key message Proposed key messages lack relevance to the research question. Irrelevant response, i.e. Incorrect comparing and contrasting throughout None of the four primary research articles is cited & discussed. Four summary paragraphs presented separately – minimal comparing and/or contrasting Other mistakes that result in very poor synthesis of study findingsConclusion (100 words) 5% 2.5/5 As for D AND Exceptional interpretation of the major points stimulates new thoughts.Great conclusion, i.e. demonstrate thinking on generalization to some extent Good conclusion, Summarizing all major points Basic conclusion provided Most major points summarized Superficial conclusion. Some major points are present, but need to be read into Lacks depth. Mostly inadequate conclusion Unclear. Mostly irrelevant to the research question Repetitive information, vague.Irrelevant response, i.e. No conclusion provided. Completely irrelevant conclusion to the research question. Writing and referencing format 5% 1/5As for P1As for P1As for P1Coherent writing style with minimal grammatical or spelling errors. Correct UniSA Harvard author-date system for in-text citation, paraphrasing & reference list. Within 10% variation of prescribed word countMostly coherent writing style with some grammatical or spelling errors. Mostly correct UniSA Harvard author-date system for in-text citation, paraphrasing & reference list. Within 10-15% variation of prescribed word countWriting incoherentin multiple places Multiple grammatical / spelling errors Many incorrect in-text citation, paraphrasing; reference list. Possible plagiarism, Within 15-20% variation of prescribed word countIncoherent writing. Significant grammatical errors &/or spelling errors Major incorrect in-text citation, paraphrasing reference list. >20% variation of the prescribed word count Plagiarism, refer to AIO STUDENT: Sabitra RaiMARKER: Dr Trudi Mannix Date: 14th October 2021 Mark: 37% Fail 2 Comments in addition to the areas highlighted above in the marking feedback rubric: Thank you for your submission Sabitra. I have used comments boxes and track changes to provide feedback on content, spelling, grammar and referencing in your paper. You have failed to meet the requirements of this assignment. Summaries: Please see my feedback on elements that were missing. Your summaries failed to provide reasonable overviews of the studies. Unfortunately you also chose one article outside the 4 in the scenario package. Results and discussion: You have demonstrated a very poor understanding of the synthesis process. The discussion was not set out appropriately. As described in the week 3 content, there should be 5 paragraphs, each starting out with a sentence stating each Key Message, then the reference of the two authors who supported that finding, and then how both studies contributed to the finding. While you did discuss honey’s effect on OM and pain, the Key Messages were so poorly articulated that a synthesis could not be read into them Consequently, there is no clear identification of key messages that you can present for Assignment 2, the poster. Please note key messages should answer the research question. For Assignment 2, please consider the following areas where you can develop five (5) key messages. Referencing: Your use of the Harvard method of referencing is well below the expected standard. Please check the guidelines on the course website. Trudi This paper has been moderated by another member of the NP teaching team. [TM1]There are multiple errors in referencing this citation Sabitra! They are: If there are more than 7 authors, list the first 6 here, followed by an ellipse (…) and then the name of last author (page 8 of the guidelines) [TM2]No, the study type was a parallel RCT Study aim is correct [TM3]The control group and intervention group procedures needed to be explained in more detail. I.e. The intervention group (n=32) gargled 20mls of thyme honey in 100mls of purified water 15 mins before and after radiotherapy and 6 hours after, 3 times a day for 7 weeks, starting in the 4th week of radiotherapy. The control group (n= 32) did the same with normal saline. [TM4]You already said that [TM5]The RCT doesn’t do the ‘segmenting’. You mean they used the envelope method to achieve randomisation Sample: only 64 were included in the final analysis at 26 weeks. [TM6]This should be Charalambous et al. but actually you didn’t need to reference it at all, as the info is in the citation, as Andie and I have both explained [TM7]Past tense in academic essays [TM8]What data? You needed to say that radiation oncologists who were blinded to the study requirements, assessed weight and OM weekly, using the RTOG scale, from the 4th week of radiotherapy for 7 weeks. Patients also used the OMWQ to assess their overall wellbeing before the intervention, one month after completion of radiotherapy, and 6 months later. [TM9]214 words is below the 10% limit You did not mention Quality of Life scores or compliance [TM10]Too many errors here Sabitra. Please see my feedback on Paper 1 [TM11]The aim is incomplete. They also measured weight loss, the need for antimicrobials and analgesia, and tube feeding [TM12]No, it was a 2-arm, double-blinded RCT [TM13]You needed to describe the study procedures i.e. patients were instructed to rinse their mouth and then slowly swallow 20ml MH or 20ml GS, 4 times a day for 42 days (4 weeks of, and 2 weeks after radiotherapy). What was the placebo? How was it given? The study procedures need to be detailed. [TM15]You had already stated the study aim. This is repetitious. [TM16]127 were in the final analysis (MH = 64; GS = 63) [TM17]This is unnecessary You have not described data collection i.e. that the RTOG scale was used to assess OM weekly. Weight was also recorded at the same time. Throat swabs were taken before, during and after radiotherapy [TM18]This should have been stated earlier [TM19]The results are too vague (what “outcomes “?). There was no difference in the incidence of grade 3 mucositis (p=0.64) and no significant difference in the severity or duration of mucositis between groups (p=0.79). There was no significant difference in either rates of tube feeding, fungal infections or percentage of weight loss between groups. Poor compliance was an issue in the study due to the taste and texture of the manuka honey, which may have affected the results. 225 words here – you could have added the detail you needed to write a better summary [TM20]This is NOT one of the 4 papers out of the scenario package! [TM21]Many errors here Sabitra. [TM22]Correct aim. [TM23]No, it was specifically a randomized open label controlled trial [TM24]That is correct. I don’t know why you said the other study type as well [TM25]Yes but only 69 were in the final analysis. The intervention group was n=36), and control group n=33 [TM26]You already said this You have not described the study procedures, or the data collection [TM27]The results are not well articulated. There are only 180 words here Sabitra! That is well out of the required range. [TM28]This discussion is not set out appropriately. As described in the week 3 content, there should be 5 paragraphs, each starting out with a sentence stating each Key Message, then the reference of the two authors who supported that finding, and then how both studies contributed to the finding. [TM29]That is not the definition of a primary research study [TM30]However what? This does not make sense [TM31]Is this meant to be Charalambous et al.? [TM32]What is the Key Message (KM) here? This is confusing. [TM33]You could adapt this to a KM (‘Honey reduces the severity of OM”. But you have not expressed this well at all, or described how the supporting studies contribute to the synthesis of this result [TM34]This author is not in your reference list [TM35]This is not relevant to the research question [TM36]No, Bardy et al. did not measure pain [TM37]You have already said this. What is the Key Message in this paragraph? I cannot find it [TM38]Ok so here is a KM, but it is not supported. Samdariya et al. did not formally measure severity of OM, so this author cannot be used to support your KM. You need to cite two studies from the 4 in the package here [TM39]Amanat is not in your reference list [TM40]You already said this [TM41]You don’t need this. The introduction in the template already explains this Reference error with Khanal and Sener [TM42]I don’t know what referencing system you are using here but you need to unformat it and convert all citations to plain text before you submit. [TM43]No, honey will NOT limit carcinoma [TM44]No, that is not a correct assumption. They compared honey with normal saline, not other honeys. Referencing errors [TM45]Both what? This doesn’t make sense. Referencing error there with Rao [TM46]Yes correct but what two authors out of the 4 in the scenario package support this finding? [TM47]Weight was not supported across studies [TM48]That article is nothing to do with mucositis! It is about comparing “the performances of professionals and students with respect to syntactical model comprehension, which is a core factor for evaluating the cognitive effectiveness of notations.” [TM49]The article is simply the publication of the study, so when referring to the design/particulars of the study, refer to the study, not the article [TM50]This is not relevant to the research question [TM51]This is not a result supported by a synthesis of study findings [TM52]poor expression here [TM53]this is not relevant where are your references? [TM54]Your use of the Harvard method of referencing is well below the expected standard. Please check the guidelines on the course website. [TM55]many errors here. Aside from the errors I have already pointed out on page 4, I will add: Et al. is not used in a reference list When an article is accessed using an electronic database, reference it as a standard journal article: do not include date viewed, URL, or refer to the database. See page 26 of the guidelines. [TM56]Aside from the4 fact that this article is completely irrelevant to this topic, the citation contains many errors [TM57]There are multiple errors in these references [TM58]Multiple errors here
